Home Care Professionals Series: Part 2 – What Are Creditable Benefits under the WPA?

Executive Summary.  Under the New York Wage Parity Act (“Act” or “WPA”), the term “supplemental wages” covers a wide range of benefits. Generally speaking, any non-wage remuneration that primarily benefits the employee rather than the home care agency may be considered. However, this standard is less than clear and in any event, deciding which benefits to provide workers depends on several factors. For example, some benefits are tax-advantaged both to the agency and the worker; other benefits are not. Some benefits require formal plans under the Internal Revenue Code; other benefits do not. They can be set up as payroll practices without a formal plan. And, some benefits will provide dollar-for-dollar credit against the Act’s $4.09(NYC)/$3.22(LI, Westchester) additional and supplemental wage package (the “WPA Package”); other benefits will not. These other benefits must be calculated using an “annualization method” from prevailing wage law, which reduces the creditable amount for WPA purposes.

Please click here for the full article: Home Care Professionals Series – Part 2

Union Agreement to Arbitrate “Sleep-In” Wage and Hour Claims Applies Even Though Agreement Was Signed After Lawsuit Began

Executive Summary: In Lai Chan et al. v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., decided February 3, 2016, the Southern District of New York (covering New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan counties) deferred to arbitration the unpaid wage and overtime claims of Sleep-in workers covered by a union agreement, even though the agreement to arbitrate was signed after the lawsuit alleging these claims against the home care agency was commenced. An earlier decision in this same case from the New York County Supreme Court had denied the agency’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and volunteered that under New York Labor Law, Sleep-in workers must receive wages for 24 hours of work. This question will now be decided in arbitration, not in a court action.

What Reason Did the Federal Court Give?

The question presented was whether unpaid wage and overtime claims of Sleep-in workers should be deferred to arbitration under a union collective bargaining agreement even though the agreement with the arbitration provision was signed after the claims were brought in court.

The plaintiffs claimed that the agreement to arbitrate, which was embodied in a 2015 Memorandum of Agreement between the agency and 1199 SEIU, could not apply retroactively to their claims. The court rejected this argument, stating that under controlling case law, unless the parties said otherwise in the agreement to arbitrate, “an arbitration provision may cover claims that accrued prior to the execution of the agreement to arbitrate.” Moreover, the court added that any question on the scope of the arbitrable issues was for the arbitrator to decide, not the court. Were it not for this court’s decision, the agency would have had to defend the workers’ claims as a class action in court.

Points to Consider:

  1. To have a court defer wage and hour (or other) claims, whether brought singly or as a class, to arbitration, you must have your home care workers sign bona fide arbitration agreements. These agreements should be written in a manner to be understood by home care workers, provide sufficient protection to allow workers to bring their claims in arbitration, and be entered into voluntarily by workers with safeguards against any claim of fraud or duress.
  2. Implementation of arbitration agreements in non-union settings and procedures to obtain worker signatures must be consistent, uniform, and designed to obtain informed consent, whether the agreement is requested from a new employee as a condition to hire or a current employee as a condition of continued employment.

 

What Questions Does This Decision Raise?

  1. How do you construct an enforceable arbitration agreement that meets all legal requirements?
  2.  What is the “best practice” to be used in asking home care workers to sign arbitration agreements?
  3.  Where an employer knows a class action lawsuit was filed against it, must it advise all workers, including new hires who are asked to sign arbitration agreements, of the lawsuit?
  4.  Will individual arbitration agreements with non-union workers, if implemented properly, apply retroactively to class actions the same as union agreements to arbitrate?
  5.  How would an agreement to arbitrate with a union affect an agency’s former workers from bringing an action in court, either as a class or singly?
  6.  What time limits for bringing wage and hour claims will apply to claims brought in arbitration?

FordHarrison’s Home Care Law Group is composed of partners and associates who are immersed in the home care industry and dedicated to solving its problems. The Group can provide you with an arbitration agreement and written implementation procedures. If you have any questions about this Legal Alert, please call the Group Head, Stephen Zweig, at 212-453-5906 or email him at szweig@fordharrison.com.

Home Care Professionals Series: Part 1 – NYS Domestic Worker’s Bill of Rights

Executive Summary. As most home care agencies know, the United States Department of Labor (“USDOL”) eliminated the companionship exemption for home care agency workers on October 13, 2015 in its Final Rule on the Application of the FLSA to Domestic Service Workers (“Final Rule”). What they may not have considered, however, is that following the Final Rule, the NYS Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which originally only applied to home care workers directly employed by individual households, now also applies to agency employed home care workers. For NYC agencies, in particular, coming into compliance with Domestic Workers Bill of Rights requires changes to the benefits they provide to their home care workers.

Paid Leave Requirements

Until October 13, 2015, when the USDOL’s Final Rule went into effect, NYC home care agencies’ paid leave policies were only required to comply with the paid sick day requirements under Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) (effective April 1, 2014, except for unionized agencies, which were exempted until their collective bargaining agreements expired). Now, NYC home care agencies have to comply with both ESTA and the NYS Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (“DWBR”).

DWBR requires that home care workers of eligible home care agencies be given 3 paid “days of rest” if they have been employed with the agency for at least one year and averaged 30 or more hours of work per week. Part-time workers receive fewer days, depending on their average hours worked.

ESTA separately requires that home care workers of eligible home care agencies be provided up to 40 hours of paid sick leave annually. Fortunately, ESTA has special provisions for workers covered by DWBR that effectively allow agencies to credit the paid time given under DWBR toward ESTA’s 40 hour requirement: under ESTA, home care agencies are only required to provide 2 days of sick leave to full-time home care workers (and, consistent with DWBR provisions, less time for part-time workers).

In sum, a NYC home care agency must offer its home care workers at least 5 days of paid time off (3 days of rest under DWBR and 2 sick days under ESTA) if they (i) are employed for at least one year; (ii) worked 30 or more hours per week, on average, during the previous year; and (iii) work more than 80 hours per calendar year in NYC.

Accrual and Use Requirements of Paid Leave

DWBR, unfortunately, is silent on accrual and use limitations home care agencies may impose. The New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) has issued FAQs advising agencies that paid days of rest are due to the worker at the beginning of the calendar year. For home care workers who have not yet been employed for a full year by the first day of the calendar year, the agency must transition the employee’s benefits by providing a pro rata share of days of rest on the one-year anniversary of employment and then providing the full allotment on the first day of the next calendar year. According to these FAQs, agencies cannot require that workers use days of rest in periods of less than one day, and any unused earned days of rest must be paid at the end of each year and at separation of employment. The NYSDOL FAQs also indicate that a “day” is to be paid at the worker’s regular rate of pay for the average number of hours in his or her normal workday.

ESTA, apparently trying to harmonize its requirements with those of DWBR, requires that additional sick time under ESTA be “calculated” in the same manner as days of rest under DWBR, but does not answer whether many of its other nuanced requirements will give way to the provisions under DWBR.

Weekly Day of Rest

DWBR also entitles home care workers to a 24-hour (consecutive) period “of rest” each week, which it recommends be coordinated with the worker’s traditional day for religious observance. If the home care worker waives this entitlement and accepts work on that day, he or she must be paid at the worker’s overtime rate for all hours worked on this day, whether or not the worker’s total hours for the week exceed 40.

 What questions does the new application of DWBR raise for NYC home care agencies?

  1. How many hours constitutes a “day” if your home care workers work shifts of varying lengths, including 24-hour shifts?
  2. Do home care agencies have to allow their workers to take sick time in 4-hour increments, when that is not required by DWBR?
  3. May a home care agency implement different notice or scheduling requirements for the use of days of rest under DWBR and sick days under ESTA?
  4. If a home care agency’s collective bargaining agreement has not yet expired, and therefore ESTA does not apply, how should the agency plan to implement current DWBR and future ESTA requirements?
  5. If a home care agency had not yet provided any paid days of rest or sick days to its home care workers for 2015, how much time is the agency required to provide retroactively to its workers for 2015?
  6. May a home care agency choose to rollover workers’ sick days rather than pay out at the end of the year, as allowed under ESTA, but not allowed for days of rest under the DWBR?
  7. If a home care agency is providing extra paid time off in addition to DWBR time, what are “best practices” and how should they be written in a paid time off provision in an employee handbook?

The Bottom Line

ESTA and DWBR combine to create a statutory minimum for paid time off available to home care workers. However, the interplay between the two laws is not yet well-defined and agencies should be careful to implement a paid time off policy that complies with the different requirements of both laws.

FordHarrison advises and counsels home care agencies on all labor, employment and benefit issues. If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert or would like our advice about particular facts and circumstances at your home care agency, please contact the authors, Stephen Zweig, Roshni Chaudhari, or Andrea Orr (paralegal), members of the firm’s Home Care Industry Group in its New York City office at szweig@fordharrison.com, rchaudhari@fordharrison.com, aorr@fordharrison.com, or (212) 453-5900, or the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work. 

DOH Reverses Position on Overtime Pay Under The Wage Parity Act

Executive Summary: On November 2, 2015, the NYS Department of Health (“DOH”) issued important notices affecting the wage and overtime obligations of New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester County home care agencies. In addition to setting Total Compensation under the Wage Parity Act for March 1, 2016 – February 28, 2017, the DOH reversed its existing position that overtime pay does not reduce the additional and supplemental wage package due on each episode of care hour worked under the Wage Parity Act. This reversal of position has major ramifications for the home care industry in downstate New York.

What was the DOH’s position on overtime? Until issuance of Dear Administrator Letters (“DALs”) titled “Official Notice of Home Care Worker Wage Parity Minimum Rate of Total Compensation,” on November 2, 2015, the DOH had said that, “(o)vertime was not included in the Total Compensation rate of $14.09″ under the Wage Parity Act.” (FAQ No. 7, Home Care Worker Wage Parity FAQs May 2014). Under that interpretation, an agency servicing a WPA covered case in New York City was obligated to pay overtime wages for all hours over 40 in a workweek PLUS an additional wage and benefit package of $4.09 (the “$4.09 Package”). On and after the effective date of the U.S. Department of Labor’s “Final Rule,” October 13, 2015, this meant that an overtime episode-of-care hour under the WPA had a labor cost of $15 in wages and $4.09 Package, for a total cost of $19.09.

What is the DOH’s new position on overtime? Each of the Notices issued by the DOH on November 2, 2015, one for New York City and one for Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester County home care agencies, expressly state that “FAQ number 7 is superseded by this notice.” The Notices state further:

The Overtime premium pay (1/2 times the workers “regular rate of pay”) that employers are required to pay for overtime hours under state and federal minimum wage laws may be used to satisfy the Total Compensation required under the wage parity law. (emphasis added)

This means, says the DOH, that “if the Total compensation rate is $14.09, then the requirement to pay or prove $14.09 is fully satisfied by payment of $15, for that same hour of overtime.” No longer must an agency servicing a WPA case in New York City pay the $4.09 Package on top of $15.00 for an overtime hour.

What questions does this raise for home care agencies?

  1. If the actual cost to an agency for a WPA covered overtime hour as compared to a non-overtime hour has effectively been reduced to $15 per hour, instead of $19.09 per hour, will this reduction in the overtime premium to $.91 be given more weight in deciding whether to provide a worker with overtime hours in order to retain that worker and worker’s client and greater priority to “continuity of care” concerns?
  2. If the DOH’s “Notice Regarding Overtime Pay under Wage Parity,” is, as written, “provided to clarify the extent to which overtime can be used to satisfy the Total Compensation requirements for a given hour of overtime” is this clarification effective retroactively?
  3. If a home care agency has already paid WPA covered overtime hours at $19.09 per hour, is there any recourse or future reduction in WPA $4.09 Package obligations available to that agency?

If you have any questions regarding this Alert or would like our advice of your home care agency’s particular facts and circumstances, please contact our Home Care Group members, Stephen Zweig, Philip Davidoff or Eric Su in FordHarrison’s New York City office at (212) 453-5900, or the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.

United States Supreme Court Denies Stay of Appeals Court Ruling Validating USDOL’s Final Rule

24-Hour Shift Cases: Now Far Too Costly To Service?

Executive Summary. Last week, a Manhattan Supreme Court Justice denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Chinese–American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., brought for unpaid wages, overtime, and failing to pay workers properly under the Wage Parity Act, among other alleged violations. That alone is not newsworthy. What is newsworthy is the court’s statement that “(a)rguably, 12 NYCRR 142-3.1 (b) (a NYS Department of Labor Wage Order) indicates that an employee who works a 24-hour shift is entitled to 24 hours pay ….” Decisions from justices in both the Manhattan and Brooklyn Supreme Courts have now reached this same conclusion, which is very troublesome for agencies continuing to service these cases.

The Court’s Reasoning Why 24 Hours Wages Are Due

The court said that the Wage Order differentiates between 24-hour shift residential employees (who have no other home other than the client’s) and non-residential employees (who have their own home, in addition to the client’s), allowing an agency to deduct sleep-time and duty free time only for residential employees. Quoting from the Wage Order, the court found significant the omission of non-residential employees from the following exception:

(A) residential employee – one who lives on the premises of the employer – shall not be deemed to be permitted to work or required to be available to work: (1) during his or her normal sleeping hours solely because such employee is required to be on call during such hours; or (2) at any other time when he or she is free to leave the place of employment.

The court added that no deference was due to a NYS DOL 2010 Opinion Letter which said that residential and non-residential employees should be treated the same for purposes of these deductions from hours worked, because “courts are not required to embrace a regulatory construction that conflicts with the plain meaning of the promulgated language.” Further quoting from the Wage Order, the court also added that “Employees who are ‘on call’ are considered to be working during all hours that they are confined to the workplace including those hours in which they do not actually perform their duties.”

This reasoning is especially significant because it is broader than the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule on the Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Domestic Service, recently validated by the D.C. Court of Appeals, but not yet effective and in force. Although the Final Rule recognized the difference between 24-hour shift workers who live in a client’s home (which it terms “live-ins”) and 24-hour shift workers who do not, it did not limit the deduction of sleep time or duty free time to live-ins alone.  If the Manhattan and Brooklyn Supreme Court justices’ interpretation of New York law stands, it will supersede the federal rule on this issue.

The Bottom Line. Unless and until an appellate court in New York rules differently, home care agencies who employ “sleep-in” workers are exposed to potential current and past liability for 24-hour shift sleep-in cases when the worker is paid for fewer than 24 hours’ pay.

If you have any questions regarding this Alert or would like our advice regarding your home care agency’s particular facts and circumstances, please contact the author, Stephen Zweig, Partner in FordHarrison’s New York City office, who has counseled and defended home care agencies for over 35 years, at szweig@fordharrison.com or (212) 453-5900, or the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.

DOL’s Final Rule Upheld by D.C. Court of Appeals

BREAKING NEWS: The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled today that the US Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule on the Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Domestic Service (the “Final Rule”) is valid, because it is “grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the statute (FLSA) and is neither arbitrary nor capricious.” Under the Final Rule, home care agency workers are no longer covered by the FLSA’s companionship services exemption or its live-in domestic worker exemption. This decision is of serious concern to the home care industry. Whether the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court remains to be seen.

What Questions Do Home Care Agencies Need To Have Answered?

  1. When will the change in the law be considered effective? The Final Rule was initially to be effective January 1, 2015, before it was invalidated by the district court. The D.C. Court of Appeals has reversed the district court, and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the DOL. How will the District Court’s earlier decisions, or a delay in issuing its decision on remand, delay the effective date? What position will the DOL take on the effective date?
  2. When will the DOL begin to enforce the Final Rule? When the Final Rule was originally issued, the DOL said it would delay enforcement for six months from the effective date or until June 30, 2015, and for the remainder of 2015, would exercise prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to bring enforcement actions. Will the DOL still provide for a meaningful transition period?
  3. How does validation of the Final Rule affect private attorney lawsuits and class actions? Agencies are now obligated to pay time and one half the worker’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. If a worker receives a base rate and a higher rate for certain hours (e.g. weekend), calculation of a worker’s overtime rate will be more difficult because it requires a weighted blending of the two rates to provide the regular rate of pay for that week. Employers who do not comply may be targeted by plaintiff’s lawyers.
  4. How does validation of the Final Rule affect enforcement actions by the NYS Department of Labor? The Final Rule effectively eliminates the differing treatment of workers under New York law based on whether they are employed by agencies or directly by households. Formerly, under the NYS Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, for- profit agency home care workers who qualified as “companions” under federal law only had to be paid overtime at one and one half the NYS minimum rate of pay. Now all agencies, for-profit and not-for-profit, must pay home care workers overtime at one and one-half times the individual worker’s regular rate of pay.
  5. What effect does the Final Rule have on the “hours worked” rules applicable to the home care industry? Is there a difference in the treatment of “live-in” workers versus “sleep-in” workers? What type of written agreements with 24 hour case workers must be entered into? Is it a “duty-free” hour if the worker is required to remain on-call on the premises? How must sleep time and travel time be handled?

If you have any questions regarding this Alert or would like our advice of your home care agency’s particular facts and circumstances, please contact the author, Stephen Zweig, Partner in FordHarrison’s New York City office, who has counseled and defended home care agencies for over 35 years, at szweig@fordharrison.com or (212) 453-5900, or the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.

Brooklyn Judge Finds 13 Hours Pay for 24 Hour Case Lawful, Creating Split Among Kings County Justices

Executive Summary:

On May 4, 2015, Kings County Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt issued a decision in Adriana Moreno, et al. v. Future Care Health Services, Inc., et al., Index No. 500569/13, which concerned live-in home health aides (“live-ins”) who asserted they were not properly compensated for 24-hour shifts. Justice Schmidt decided that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements as set forth under New York law for class certification to apply to all similar workers, and further deferred to the New York State Department of Labor’s (“NYDOL”) 2010 Opinion Letter (“2010 Opinion”), disagreeing with the live-ins, and upholding the homecare agency’s payment of the minimum 13 hours for 24-hour shifts.

Background:

The NYDOL 2010 Opinion considered the issue of live-in compensation for third-party agency employers, stating such employers were permitted to pay live-ins for 13 hours for a 24-hour shift, provided the live-in: (a) slept 8 hours (with at least 5 of such hours uninterrupted); and (b) received 3 uninterrupted hours for meals. The 2010 Opinion can be viewed here: http://labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Other/RO-09-0169%20-%20Live-In%20Companions.pdf.

The affordability of employing live-ins has been a hot topic in the homecare industry, which ultimately turns on how a live-in’s “hours worked” are defined. For more information on how an agency can defend itself against a private lawsuit targeting live-ins, view our firm’s December 12, 2014 LegalAlert: “Can Your Home Care Agency Afford to Employ Sleep-Ins?” here: http://www.fordharrison.com/can-your-agency-afford-to-employ-sleep-ins-1.

Decision:

Justice Schmidt relied on the framework outlined in the 2010 Opinion and found no “evidentiary detail” that demonstrated the live-ins in Moreno did not receive the necessary uninterrupted sleep or meal breaks to warrant more than the 13 hours’ pay they received. Moreover, Justice Schmidt noted the live-ins failed to show an “across the board policy” by their Employer which violated their right to compensation for all “hours worked.”

Justice Schmidt’s Moreno decision is welcome news for homecare agencies operating in Kings County and New York generally, as it signals a deviation from the harsh holding of fellow Kings County Supreme Court Justice Carolyn Demarest in Andreyeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 45 Misc. 3d 820 (Sup. Ct., Kings County, Sept. 16, 2014). Just nine months ago, Justice Demarest’s Andreyeyeva decision sent shockwaves through the homecare industry, declaring that 24-hour shift workers should receive compensation for every single hour of their 24-hour shift, regardless of sleep or meal time. Judge Demarest’s decision is currently on appeal.

In December of 2014, Justice Schmidt had declined to grant a motion to dismiss in Melamed v. Americare Certified Special Serv., Inc., 2014 N.Y. Slip. Op. 33296 (Sup. Ct., Kings County, Dec. 11, 2014) and cited Andreyeyeva in support of his decision. In that case, Justice Schmidt declined to decide the issue of how many hours of pay was required on a 24-hour shift, stating that “any argument over whether or not the plaintiffs should be paid for every hour on site is irrelevant at this point since a grant of dismissal, in defendants’ favor, is not hinged upon such issue.” Id.

Conclusion

The disagreement between Supreme Court Justices in Kings County evidences how complicated the issue of compensable time is with regards to 24-hour shift workers. Although New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) requires that employees receive pay for “each hour worked,” reasonable minds (i.e. two Supreme Court Justices) now “split” and differ on what “hours worked” means in this context. If you have any questions regarding this Alert, please contact Danielle Moss at dmoss@fordharrison.com or Stephen Zweig at szweig@fordharrison.com of FordHarrison’s New York City office.

New York City Passes Ban-the-Box Legislation Affecting Private Employers

Executive Summary: On June 10, 2015, the New York City Council passed the NYC Fair Chance Act (the Act) in a landslide vote. Sponsored by New York City Council Member Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn), the Act amends the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to prohibit private employers in New York City with four or more employees from inquiring into or otherwise considering an applicant’s criminal background history prior to extending a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a law that prohibits New York City government employers from asking applicants during the initial application process whether they have been convicted of a crime. The Act now extends that law to private employers with at least four employees and “bans the box” that is commonly found on job applications by which employers inquire into applicants’ criminal histories.

Under the Act, employers may only inquire into an applicant’s criminal history after extending a conditional offer of employment. The Act defines “inquiry” as “any question communicated to an applicant in writing or otherwise, or any searches of publicly available records or consumer reports that are conducted for the purpose of obtaining an applicant’s criminal background information.” The Act also prohibits private employers from distributing any advertisement that expresses any limitation or specification in employment based on an individual’s arrest or criminal conviction. Employers who inquire into an applicant’s criminal history after making a conditional offer of employment must comply with the following requirements before taking any adverse employment action based on such inquiry:

  • provide the applicant with a written copy of the inquiry;
  • perform an analysis that is required by Article 23(a) of the New York Corrections Law;
  • provide the applicant with a copy of such analysis; and
  • provide the applicant with three business days to respond to the written analysis, during which time the employer must hold open the employment position for that applicant.

Importantly, the Act does not apply to any actions taken by employers pursuant to any federal, state or local law that requires criminal background checks for employment purposes or bars employment based on criminal history. Moreover, the Act exempts from coverage police officers, peace officers and certain positions within the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Violations of the Act will be enforceable against private employers by the New York City Commission on Human Rights through an administrative procedure or a private right of action, and will be enforceable against public agencies by a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).

The Act will become effective 120 days after it is signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, which is expected to take place shortly due to his support for the Act. Thereafter, New York City will join 17 states and more than 100 cities that have already adopted “ban-the-box” laws. However, only certain states and cities such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, San Francisco and Chicago have enacted laws affecting inquiries by private employers regarding job applicants’ criminal background histories.

Employers’ Bottom Line: New York City employers are subject to an ever-increasing number of regulations with respect to their hiring practices. Notably, the NYC Fair Chance Act was passed just weeks after the passage of legislation that bars certain New York City employers from requesting or using current or prospective employees’ consumer credit histories for employment purposes. New York City employers should review the Act’s requirements and revise their employment applications and criminal background check policies accordingly to ensure compliance with the Act.

If you have any questions regarding this Act, other ban-the-box laws, or hiring practices in general, please feel free to contact the authors of this Alert, Philip Davidoff, pdavidoff@fordharrison.com, a partner in our New York City office, or Saima Zuberi, szuberi@fordharrison.com, an associate in our New York City office. You may also contact the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.